Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Mar 25;21(3):e0345771. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345771

Prevalence and risk factors of disordered eating risk among Yemeni medical students: A national multicenter cross-sectional study

Naji Al-bawah 1,*,#, Mohamed Baklola 2,*,#, Anas H Khalifeh 3, Ahmed Al-Eryani 1, Anas Zakarya Nourelden 4, Saif Alaribi 5, Ehab Sharyan 1, Fayda Al-wesabi 6, Aaida Al Wesabi 6, Ahdab Al-Jaberi 1, Sama Shamsan 1, Ahmed Abdulmughni 1, Ghailan Al-Jarbani 1, Hisham Salman 1, Amira Yasmine Benmelouka 7
Editor: Mohammed Zawiah8
PMCID: PMC13016294  PMID: 41880338

Abstract

Background

Disordered eating behaviors represent an important mental health concern among medical students, who are exposed to substantial academic and psychological stressors. Data on disordered eating risk in Yemen remain limited. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of disordered eating risk among Yemeni medical students and to examine associated sociodemographic, lifestyle, medical, and psychological factors.

Methods

A national multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted between June and July 2025 across fifteen Yemeni medical colleges. Undergraduate students completed a structured, self-administered online questionnaire using a convenience sampling approach. Disordered eating risk was assessed using the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26), with a cutoff score of ≥20. Additional items assessed sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, chronic medical conditions, and self-reported psychiatric diagnoses. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine factors associated with disordered eating risk.

Results

A total of 3,540 students participated. Overall, 30.4% screened positive for disordered eating risk. Disordered eating risk was associated with food insecurity, parental perception of being overweight, weight dissatisfaction, type 1 diabetes mellitus, past suicide attempts, and several self-reported psychiatric conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, social anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and major depressive disorder. Weight satisfaction was associated with lower odds of risk. Additionally, 31.6% of participants reported a prior self-reported diagnosis of an eating disorder, which was not independently verified.

Conclusion

Disordered eating risk was common among Yemeni medical students and was associated with multiple sociodemographic, medical, and psychological factors. Given the cross-sectional design and reliance on self-reported data, causal relationships cannot be established. The findings suggest that consideration may be given to screening and supportive mental health resources within medical training institutions.

Background

Eating disorders (EDs) are complex psychiatric conditions marked by persistent disturbances in eating behaviors and an excessive focus on body weight and shape, resulting in significant impairment in mental, physical, and psychosocial functioning [1,2]. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), EDs include anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, avoidant or restrictive food intake disorder, pica, rumination disorder, and other specified feeding or eating disorders [3]. Alongside clinically diagnosed EDs, disordered eating refers to a broader spectrum of maladaptive eating attitudes and behaviors that do not necessarily meet diagnostic criteria but are associated with substantial physical and psychological morbidity, including electrolyte disturbances, hormonal dysregulation, cardiovascular complications, and reduced bone density [4].

The development of EDs is multifactorial. Predisposing factors include genetic vulnerabilities and certain personality traits, while triggering and maintaining factors may involve environmental influences, social isolation, and maladaptive coping mechanisms [5]. Globally, the prevalence of EDs is estimated at 5.7% among females and 2.2% among males [6]. However, screening-based estimates of disordered eating risk appear substantially higher in specific subgroups, particularly medical students. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis reported a pooled prevalence of 10.4% among medical students based largely on screening instruments [7], while other individual studies suggest rates reaching 15% [8], 28.6% in Jordan [9], and specific ED diagnoses such as binge eating and bulimia nervosa reported at 5% and 1.2% respectively, in Nepal [10].

Medical students are considered particularly vulnerable to disordered eating behaviors due to a combination of academic, psychological, and social pressures. Contributing factors may include anxiety, depression, academic overload, burnout, limited coping skills, lack of social support, weight stigma, and body image dissatisfaction [11–13]. Studies also suggest that vulnerability may increase during the transition to clinical training years [14]. Difficulties in emotional processing, including alexithymia and impaired social cognition, may further elevate this risk [15].

EDs among students are associated with diminished cognitive performance, mood disturbances, decreased motivation, and impaired academic achievement [16]. Early identification of disordered eating patterns is crucial to preventing the escalation to more severe clinical conditions [17]. Early identification of disordered eating risk is crucial to preventing progression to more severe clinical conditions [11].

Although interest in eating disorder research has grown in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, significant data gaps remain [18]. A recent large-scale multinational study involving over 5,000 medical students across the MENA region reported that approximately 24.8% were at risk of eating disorders, with key risk factors including type 1 diabetes mellitus, schizophrenia, autism, female gender, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and frequent exposure to the thin-ideal body image [19]. Protective factors included regular physical activity and satisfaction with body weight. Despite these findings, Yemen was not included in this study, and to date, no published research has specifically examined disordered eating risk among Yemeni medical students. Given Yemen’s unique sociocultural context, ongoing conflict, limited mental health resources, and increasing exposure to media-driven body ideals, there is a critical need to assess the prevalence and correlates of disordered eating risk in this population. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the prevalence of disordered eating risk among medical students in Yemen and to identify associated sociodemographic, lifestyle, medical, and psychological factors.

Methods

Study design

A national multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of disordered eating risk and to identify associated sociodemographic, lifestyle, medical, and psychological factors among medical students in Yemen. The study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for cross-sectional studies [20].

Study setting and duration

The study was conducted across fifteen medical colleges located in different governorates of Yemen, including Sana’a, Aden, Taiz, Ibb, and Hadramout. These institutions were selected to ensure diversity in educational settings and broad geographical representation. Ethical approval was obtained on June 21, 2025. Participant recruitment and data collection were carried out from June 22, 2025, to July 22, 2025.

Study population and participants

The target population consisted of undergraduate medical students enrolled in Yemeni medical colleges during the study period. Eligible participants were students from all academic years, ranging from first to sixth year. Inclusion criteria were current enrollment in a Yemeni medical college, age 18 years or older, and voluntary agreement to participate. Exclusion criteria included incomplete questionnaires and duplicate responses identified during data cleaning. Participation was entirely voluntary, and no financial or academic incentives were provided.

Sampling and recruitment

A non-probability convenience sampling strategy was employed. The questionnaire was distributed electronically through official student communication platforms, including institutional mailing lists and student-managed social media groups across the participating medical colleges. Participation was voluntary, and students self-selected into the study by accessing the survey link.

Due to the nature of online distribution through multiple communication channels, the exact number of students who received or viewed the invitation could not be determined. Consequently, a precise response rate could not be calculated. Although the study included participants from fifteen medical colleges across different regions of Yemen, the sample may not be fully representative of all Yemeni medical students. This limitation should be considered when interpreting the findings.

Sample size calculation

The required sample size was calculated using GPower software version 3.1.9.7, which is a widely used and validated tool for power and sample size estimation in biomedical and epidemiological research, particularly for regression-based analyses [21]. GPower allows flexible modeling of logistic regression parameters and provides reliable estimates of statistical power based on effect size assumptions derived from prior literature.

An a priori power analysis was conducted for a binary logistic regression model, given the dichotomous nature of the primary outcome variable, defined as disordered eating risk based on an EAT-26 score of 20 or higher. The analysis assumed a two-tailed test, an odds ratio of 1.3 representing a small to moderate effect size commonly reported in studies of disordered eating among medical students, a significance level of 0.05, and a desired statistical power of 0.95. The expected probability of disordered eating risk under the null hypothesis was set at 0.20, in accordance with prevalence estimates reported in previous studies of medical student populations [22].

Based on these parameters, the minimum required sample size was estimated at 1,188 participants. To account for a potential non-response rate or incomplete questionnaires of approximately 20 percent, the target sample size was increased to 1,426 participants. Ultimately, 3,540 students completed the survey, exceeding the minimum requirement and thereby enhancing the statistical precision and robustness of the findings.

Study tools

Data were collected using a structured, self-administered online questionnaire developed for the purposes of this study. The questionnaire was distributed electronically through official student communication platforms of participating medical colleges and consisted of three main components. The first component assessed sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics, including age, gender, academic year, marital status, smoking status, qat chewing, physical activity, self-reported height and weight, food insecurity, and parental perceptions related to body weight.

Height and weight were self-reported by participants. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared (kg/m²). During data cleaning, anthropometric values were screened for plausibility, and biologically implausible values were excluded based on predefined acceptable ranges. The use of self-reported measurements may introduce reporting bias and should be considered when interpreting BMI-related findings.

The second component evaluated disordered eating risk using the Eating Attitudes Test, 26-item version (EAT-26), a widely used screening instrument designed to identify individuals at increased risk of disordered eating behaviors [23]. The EAT-26 comprises 26 items rated on a six-point Likert scale, with standardized scoring procedures yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 78. A cutoff score of 20 or higher was used to indicate elevated risk of disordered eating behaviors requiring further clinical assessment. The EAT-26 is a freely available tool and has demonstrated strong psychometric properties across diverse populations. In the present study, participants completed either the Arabic or English version of the scale, both of which have been previously validated and used in Middle Eastern and medical student populations. Internal consistency in the current sample was excellent, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.88 [24].

The third component of the questionnaire assessed health-related and psychological variables. Participants were asked to report any history of chronic medical conditions and whether they had ever been diagnosed by a healthcare professional with specific psychiatric conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, social anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, or borderline personality disorder. These psychiatric diagnoses were self-reported and were not independently verified through medical records or clinical assessment. Participants were also asked about previous suicide attempts, body weight satisfaction, and selected personality traits relevant to disordered eating risk, including perfectionism, impulsiveness, and obsessive traits. Prior diagnosis of an eating disorder was assessed using a single self-reported item asking whether the participant had ever received a diagnosis of an eating disorder from a healthcare professional. This information was not independently verified.

Pilot testing

Prior to the main data collection, a pilot study was conducted among 40 medical students from two Yemeni medical colleges who were not included in the final analysis. The pilot aimed to assess clarity, comprehension, cultural appropriateness, and technical functionality of the online questionnaire. Minor linguistic and formatting modifications were made based on participant feedback. The pilot data were also used to assess internal consistency, yielding a Cronbach alpha of 0.86 for the EAT-26, indicating high reliability.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Amran University (Approval No. 854). Electronic informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to accessing the questionnaire. Participants were informed about the study objectives, voluntary nature of participation, confidentiality of responses, and their right to withdraw at any time without consequences. All data were collected anonymously, stored securely, and accessed only by the research team.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 28.0. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, while continuous variables were presented as means and standard deviations. The Kolmogorov Smirnov test was used to assess normality of continuous variables to guide descriptive presentation. Disordered eating risk was defined as an EAT-26 score of 20 or higher and was treated as a binary outcome variable. Associations between participant characteristics and disordered eating risk were initially examined using chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate. Variables with a p-value less than 0.20 in bivariate analyses were entered into a multivariable logistic regression model using the enter method. A p-value threshold of 0.20 was selected to avoid excluding potentially important confounders at the preliminary stage, consistent with recommended epidemiologic modeling practices. In addition, key sociodemographic variables (including age and gender) were retained in the multivariable model regardless of statistical significance due to their theoretical relevance. Multicollinearity was assessed using variance inflation factors. Model fit was evaluated using the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. A two-tailed p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Participant characteristics

A total of 3,540 undergraduate medical students from fifteen Yemeni medical colleges participated in the study. Based on the EAT-26 cutoff score, 1,076 participants (30.4%) were classified as having disordered eating risk, while 2,464 participants (69.6%) did not meet the cutoff. Fig 1 illustrates the self-reported history of eating disorder diagnosis among the study participants. Overall, 1,117 students (31.6%) reported having been previously diagnosed with an eating disorder, while the majority of participants (68.4%, n = 2,423) reported no prior diagnosis. The overall sample included 1,896 females (53.6%) and 1,644 males (46.4%). Participants were distributed across all academic years, with relatively comparable representation from first through sixth year.

Fig 1. Self-reported history of eating disorder diagnosis among medical students.

Fig 1

Proportion of participants reporting a prior diagnosis of an eating disorder. Data are based on self-report and were not independently verified. Percentages are calculated using the total study sample (N = 3,540).

Sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health-related characteristics

Table 1 presents the sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health-related characteristics of participants according to disordered eating risk. Gender was not significantly associated with disordered eating risk (45.0% males in the risk group vs. 47.1% males in the non-risk group; p = 0.256).

Table 1. Sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health-related characteristics according to disordered eating risk (EAT-26 ≥ 20).

Variable Category Total

n (%)
No disordered eating risk

n (%)
Disordered eating risk

n (%)
p-value
Gender Male 1644 (46.4) 1160 (47.1) 484 (45.0) 0.256
Female 1896 (53.6) 1304 (52.9) 592 (55.0)
Academic year First 611 (17.3) 361 (14.7) 250 (23.2) <0.001
Second 578 (16.3) 384 (15.6) 194 (18.0)
Third 589 (16.6) 407 (16.5) 182 (16.9)
Fourth 614 (17.3) 465 (18.9) 149 (13.8)
Fifth 588 (16.6) 440 (17.9) 148 (13.8)
Sixth 560 (15.8) 407 (16.5) 153 (14.2)
Marital status Married 546 (15.4) 366 (14.9) 180 (16.7) <0.001
Single 2818 (79.6) 2017 (81.9) 801 (74.4)
Divorced 125 (3.5) 59 (2.4) 66 (6.1)
Widowed 51 (1.4) 22 (0.9) 29 (2.7)
Smoking Yes 661 (18.7) 441 (17.9) 220 (20.4) 0.074
No 2879 (81.3) 2023 (82.1) 856 (79.6)
Qat chewing Yes 1413 (39.9) 1002 (40.7) 411 (38.2) 0.179
No 2127 (60.1) 1462 (59.3) 665 (61.8)
Regular physical activity Yes 982 (27.7) 623 (25.3) 359 (33.4) <0.001
No 2558 (72.3) 1841 (74.7) 717 (66.6)
Type 1 diabetes mellitus Yes 302 (8.5) 126 (5.1) 176 (16.4) <0.001
No 3238 (91.5) 2338 (94.9) 900 (83.6)
Gastrointestinal disease Yes 926 (26.2) 564 (22.9) 362 (33.6) <0.001
No 2614 (73.8) 1900 (77.1) 714 (66.4)
Autism spectrum disorder Yes 293 (8.3) 119 (4.8) 174 (16.2) <0.001
No 3247 (91.7) 2345 (95.2) 902 (83.8)
Sleep disorders Yes 859 (24.3) 499 (20.3) 360 (33.5) <0.001
No 2681 (75.7) 1965 (79.7) 716 (66.5)
Parental perception of overweight Yes 740 (20.9) 370 (15.0) 370 (34.4) <0.001
No 2800 (79.1) 2094 (85.0) 706 (65.6)
Parental pressure to eat Yes 1803 (50.9) 1249 (50.7) 554 (51.5) 0.688
No 1737 (49.1) 1215 (49.3) 522 (48.5)
Food insecurity Yes 938 (26.5) 526 (21.4) 412 (38.3) <0.001
No 2602 (73.5) 1938 (78.6) 664 (61.7)
Past suicide attempts Yes 388 (11.0) 152 (6.2) 236 (21.9) <0.001
No 3152 (89.0) 2312 (93.8) 840 (78.1)
Weight satisfaction Satisfied 1904 (53.8) 1377 (55.9) 527 (49.0) < 0.001
Dissatisfied 1636 (46.2) 1087 (44.1) 549 (51.0)

Values are presented as n (column percentages). Chi-square test was used. p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Academic year showed a significant association (p < 0.001). First-year students had the highest proportion of disordered eating risk (23.2% in the risk group vs. 14.7% in the non-risk group). In contrast, fourth- and fifth-year students had lower proportions in the risk group (13.8% each) compared to the non-risk group (18.9% and 17.9%, respectively).

Marital status was significantly associated with disordered eating risk in bivariate analysis (p < 0.001). Divorced participants represented 6.1% of the risk group compared to 2.4% of the non-risk group, while widowed participants represented 2.7% versus 0.9%, respectively. Smoking (20.4% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.074) and qat chewing (38.2% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.179) were not significantly associated with disordered eating risk.

Several health-related factors demonstrated strong associations. Type 1 diabetes mellitus was reported by 16.4% of students in the risk group compared to 5.1% in the non-risk group (p < 0.001). Autism spectrum disorder was reported by 16.2% of the risk group compared to 4.8% of the non-risk group (p < 0.001). A history of suicide attempts was reported by 21.9% of the risk group compared to 6.2% of the non-risk group (p < 0.001), representing more than a threefold difference. Food insecurity was reported by 38.3% of students in the risk group compared to 21.4% in the non-risk group (p < 0.001). Parental perception of being overweight was reported by 34.4% of the risk group compared to 15.0% of the non-risk group (p < 0.001).

As shown in Fig 2, most participants (76.3%, n = 2,702) reported no weight change during the six months preceding the survey. In contrast, 23.7% of participants (n = 838) reported experiencing a change in body weight during the same period.

Fig 2. Self-reported weight change among medical students during the past six months.

Fig 2

Distribution of participants reporting perceived body weight change within the six months preceding the survey. Weight change was self-reported and did not specify direction or magnitude. Percentages are calculated using the total study sample (N = 3,540).

Psychological comorbidities and personality traits

Table 2 summarizes the distribution of psychological comorbidities and personality traits according to disordered eating risk. Most self-reported psychiatric conditions were significantly associated with disordered eating risk in bivariate analyses. Self-reported post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was reported by 8.3% of students in the risk group compared to 3.0% in the non-risk group (p < 0.001). Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) was reported by 8.6% of the risk group versus 4.1% of the non-risk group (p < 0.001). Social anxiety disorder was reported by 12.2% versus 7.1%, respectively (p < 0.001). Notably strong associations were observed for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Bipolar disorder was reported by 3.6% of students in the risk group compared to 0.6% in the non-risk group (p < 0.001), while schizophrenia was reported by 3.0% versus 0.4%, respectively (p < 0.001), representing approximately six- to sevenfold higher proportions in the risk group.

Table 2. Psychological comorbidities and personality traits according to disordered eating risk (EAT-26 ≥ 20).

Variable Category Total

n (%)
No disordered eating risk

n (%)
Disordered eating risk

n (%)
p-value
PTSD Yes 164 (4.6) 75 (3.0) 89 (8.3) <0.001
No 3376 (95.4) 2389 (97.0) 987 (91.7)
OCD Yes 192 (5.4) 100 (4.1) 92 (8.6) <0.001
No 3348 (94.6) 2364 (95.9) 984 (91.4)
Social anxiety disorder Yes 307 (8.7) 176 (7.1) 131 (12.2) <0.001
No 3233 (91.3) 2288 (92.9) 945 (87.8)
Bipolar disorder Yes 55 (1.6) 16 (0.6) 39 (3.6) <0.001
No 3485 (98.4) 2448 (99.4) 1037 (96.4)
Schizophrenia Yes 42 (1.2) 10 (0.4) 32 (3.0) <0.001
No 3498 (98.8) 2454 (99.6) 1044 (97.0)
Major depressive disorder Yes 112 (3.2) 54 (2.2) 58 (5.4) <0.001
No 3428 (96.8) 2410 (97.8) 1018 (94.6)
Borderline personality disorder Yes 29 (0.8) 14 (0.6) 15 (1.4) 0.085
No 3511 (99.2) 2450 (99.4) 1061 (98.6)
Perfectionism Yes 70 (2.0) 38 (1.5) 32 (3.0) 0.005
No 3470 (98.0) 2426 (98.5) 1044 (97.0)
Obsessive traits Yes 60 (1.7) 43 (1.7) 17 (1.6) 0.726
No 3480 (98.3) 2421 (98.3) 1059 (98.4)
Impulsiveness Yes 60 (1.7) 34 (1.4) 26 (2.4) 0.028
No 3480 (98.3) 2430 (98.6) 1050 (97.6)

Abbreviations: PTSD = post-traumatic stress disorder; OCD = obsessive compulsive disorder.

Major depressive disorder was reported by 5.4% of the risk group compared to 2.2% of the non-risk group (p < 0.001). Borderline personality disorder was not significantly associated with disordered eating risk (1.4% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.085). Regarding personality traits, perfectionism was reported by 3.0% of students in the risk group compared to 1.5% in the non-risk group (p = 0.005), and impulsiveness was reported by 2.4% versus 1.4%, respectively (p = 0.028). Obsessive traits were not significantly associated with disordered eating risk (1.6% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.726).

Self-reported disordered eating symptoms, frequency, and severity

Among the 1,117 participants who reported disordered eating symptoms, the most frequently reported symptom patterns were classified as other disordered eating symptoms (38.6%), followed by anorexia nervosa symptoms (27.1%) and binge eating disorder symptoms (14.1%) (Table 3). Regarding symptom frequency, 17.4% of participants reported experiencing symptoms daily, while 24.0% reported weekly symptoms. In terms of severity, 44.4% described their symptoms as mild, 42.6% as moderate, and 13.0% as severe or very severe.

Table 3. Self-reported disordered eating symptoms, frequency, and severity among participants reporting symptoms (n = 1,117).

Variable Frequency (n) Percentage (%)
Type of disordered eating symptoms
 Anorexia nervosa 303 8.6%
 Bulimia nervosa 86 2.4%
 Binge Eating disorder 157 4.4%
 Avoidant/restrictive intake disorder 140 4.0%
 Other 431 12.2%
Frequency of symptoms
 Daily 194 5.5%
 Weekly 268 7.6%
 Monthly 232 6.6%
 Yearly 83 2.3%
 Rarely 227 6.4%
 Never 113 3.2%
Self-reported severity
 Mild 496 14.0%
 Moderate 476 13.4%
 Severe 118 3.3%
 Very severe 27 0.8%

Percentages are calculated among participants reporting disordered eating symptoms (n = 1,117).

Disordered eating related behaviors

Table 4 presents the frequency of specific disordered eating–related behaviors in the full study sample. Eating binges accompanied by a perceived loss of control were reported by 37.3% of participants at least once, while 9.8% reported such episodes on a weekly basis or more frequently. Self-induced vomiting for weight control was reported by 25.1% of participants at least once. Similarly, 25.0% reported using laxatives, diet pills, or diuretics for weight control. Excessive exercise for the purpose of weight control was reported by 37.3% of participants at least once, with 11.3% engaging in this behavior on a weekly basis or more frequently.

Table 4. Frequency of disordered eating related behaviors among participants (N = 3,540).

Behavioral question Never n (%) Once a month or less n (%) 2–3 times a month n (%) Once a week n (%) 2–6 times a week n (%) Once a day or more n (%)
Eating binges with loss of control 2219 (62.7) 633 (17.9) 343 (9.7) 106 (3.0) 94 (2.7) 145 (4.1)
Self-induced vomiting for weight control 2650 (74.9) 410 (11.6) 266 (7.5) 62 (1.8) 65 (1.8) 87 (2.5)
Use of laxatives, diet pills, or diuretics 2653 (75.0) 371 (10.5) 274 (7.7) 65 (1.8) 77 (2.2) 100 (2.8)
Excessive exercise for weight control 2220 (62.7) 536 (15.1) 384 (10.8) 114 (3.2) 149 (4.2) 137 (3.9)

Percentages are calculated based on the total study sample (N = 3,540).

Multivariable predictors of disordered eating risk

Results of the multivariable logistic regression analysis are presented in Table 5. After adjusting for potential confounders, several factors remained independently associated with disordered eating risk. Regular physical activity was associated with increased odds of disordered eating risk (adjusted OR = 1.24, p = 0.017). Participants with a history of type 1 diabetes mellitus also had higher odds of disordered eating risk (adjusted OR = 1.40, p = 0.025). Parental perception of the participant being overweight was one of the strongest predictors, doubling the odds of disordered eating risk (adjusted OR = 2.02, p < 0.001). Food insecurity (adjusted OR = 1.43, p < 0.001) and a history of suicide attempts (adjusted OR = 1.94, p < 0.001) were also significant predictors. Weight satisfaction was independently protective, with satisfied participants showing lower odds of disordered eating risk (adjusted OR = 0.84, p = 0.025). Several psychological comorbidities remained strongly associated with disordered eating risk, including post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, social anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. Borderline personality disorder did not reach statistical significance in the adjusted model.

Table 5. Multivariable logistic regression analysis of factors associated with disordered eating risk (EAT-26 ≥ 20).

Predictor Adjusted OR 95% CI p-value
Regular physical activity 1.24 1.04 to 1.47 0.017
Type 1 diabetes mellitus 1.40 1.04 to 1.89 0.025
Gastrointestinal disease 1.06 0.89 to 1.27 0.516
Autism spectrum disorder 1.33 0.99 to 1.80 0.061
Sleep disorders 1.12 0.93 to 1.35 0.233
Parental perception of overweight 2.02 1.68 to 2.44 < 0.001
Food insecurity 1.43 1.20 to 1.70 < 0.001
Past suicide attempts 1.94 1.50 to 2.52 < 0.001
Weight satisfaction 0.84 0.71 to 0.98 0.025
Post-traumatic stress disorder 2.20 1.54 to 3.14 < 0.001
Obsessive compulsive disorder 2.22 1.61 to 3.07 < 0.001
Social anxiety disorder 2.11 1.63 to 2.73 < 0.001
Bipolar disorder 3.52 1.86 to 6.68 < 0.001
Schizophrenia 5.96 2.81 to 12.68 < 0.001
Major depressive disorder 2.66 1.77 to 4.00 < 0.001
Borderline personality disorder 1.98 0.91 to 4.30 0.085
Perfectionism 2.01 1.21 to 3.35 0.007
Impulsiveness 2.65 1.55 to 4.54 < 0.001

OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. Variables were entered into the model based on p < 0.20 in bivariate analysis. Model fit was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Discussion

In this national multicenter cross-sectional study of Yemeni medical students, nearly one-third of participants screened positive for disordered eating risk, with 30.4% exceeding the EAT-26 cutoff score. This prevalence appears higher than estimates reported for the general population and aligns with evidence suggesting that medical students may represent a particularly vulnerable group for disordered eating behaviors. Disordered eating risk was associated with multiple sociodemographic, lifestyle, medical, and psychological factors, including regular physical activity, a history of type 1 diabetes mellitus, food insecurity, weight dissatisfaction, parental perception of being overweight, and past suicide attempts. Significant associations were also observed with several self-reported psychiatric conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and major depressive disorder.

In addition to elevated screening scores, a notable proportion of students reported disordered eating–related behaviors, such as binge eating, self-induced vomiting, use of weight control substances, and excessive exercise for weight control. Although marital status showed a significant association in bivariate analysis, it was not retained as an independent predictor in the adjusted model. Similarly, smoking, qat chewing, and parental pressure to eat were not independently associated with disordered eating risk.

The finding that 30.4% of medical students in this study screened positive for disordered eating risk exceeds pooled prevalence estimates reported in recent meta-analyses of medical students, including 17.35% by Fekih-Romdhane et al. (2022) and 15.1% by Jahrami et al. (2024) [25,26]. It is important to note that these estimates are largely derived from screening-based studies using instruments comparable to the EAT-26, rather than diagnostic interviews, which supports the appropriateness of comparison. Our findings are also consistent with recent data from the Middle East and North Africa region, where Belhaj Salem et al. (2025) reported that 24.8% of medical students were at risk of disordered eating, with prevalence estimates ranging from 32% to 35% in countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates [22].

Although female participants in our study demonstrated a higher proportion of disordered eating risk compared to males, this difference was not statistically significant. This finding contrasts with traditional assumptions that disordered eating disproportionately affects females but aligns with evidence from recent meta-analyses reporting no significant gender differences among medical students [26]. Additionally, emerging literature increasingly recognizes that a substantial proportion of males experience disordered eating behaviors, particularly in high-stress academic environments [27]. Therefore, our findings support the need for gender-inclusive screening and intervention strategies. The statement comparing prevalence in medical trainees to the general population should be interpreted cautiously, as differences in study design and screening tools limit direct comparison [28].

Medical students are exposed to a unique combination of academic, psychological, and sociocultural stressors that may increase vulnerability to disordered eating behaviors. The demanding nature of medical training, characterized by academic overload, competitive environments, high expectations, and exposure to illness and mortality, contributes to sustained psychological stress [25,29,30]. This stress frequently co-occurs with depression, anxiety, burnout, and perfectionistic traits, all of which were significantly associated with disordered eating risk in the present study [25,30]. When adaptive coping strategies are limited, maladaptive behaviors such as disordered eating may emerge as mechanisms for emotional regulation or perceived control [28,30].

Sociocultural influences, including internalization of thin-ideal body standards promoted through media and societal expectations, further contribute to body dissatisfaction among medical students [25,30] Familial factors also play an important role. In this study, parental perception of the student being overweight was one of the strongest predictors of disordered eating risk, consistent with prior research highlighting the impact of weight-related criticism and stigma on eating behaviors [28,30]. Interventions targeting weight self-stigma and body image dissatisfaction have demonstrated promising results in reducing disordered eating risk, underscoring the relevance of these findings [31].

A significant association was observed between disordered eating risk and a history of type 1 diabetes mellitus, while gastrointestinal disorders did not remain independently associated after multivariable adjustment. The management of type 1 diabetes requires continuous monitoring of food intake, body weight, and insulin dosing, which may increase vulnerability to maladaptive eating behaviors, including intentional insulin restriction for weight control. This phenomenon, often referred to as diabulimia, has been reported in 20% to 60% of individuals with type 1 diabetes and is associated with severe complications and increased mortality risk [32–34]. Conversely, disordered eating behaviors such as binge eating, purging, or restrictive intake can disrupt glycemic control and complicate diabetes management [32].

Although gastrointestinal disorders were common in the study population, their association with disordered eating risk did not persist after accounting for psychological comorbidities. This finding is consistent with previous research demonstrating substantial overlap between gastrointestinal symptoms and disordered eating, often mediated by anxiety and depressive disorders [35,36] Gastrointestinal symptoms may contribute to avoidant or restrictive eating patterns driven by fear of discomfort rather than body image concerns, while disordered eating behaviors themselves can result in significant gastrointestinal sequelae, including esophageal injury, gastroparesis, constipation, and functional bowel symptoms [37]. The bidirectional relationship between these conditions likely contributes to diagnostic complexity.

Psychiatric comorbidity and suicidality were strongly associated with disordered eating risk in this study, with 11.0% of participants reporting a history of suicide attempts. This finding is consistent with extensive evidence identifying eating disorders and disordered eating behaviors as conditions associated with elevated suicide risk [38,39] Anorexia nervosa is associated with particularly high suicide mortality, while lifetime suicide attempt rates are also substantial among individuals with bulimic behaviors [39].

In line with previous research, our findings indicate that psychiatric comorbidity is common among individuals at risk of disordered eating. Significant associations were observed with post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, social anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. Prior studies have similarly demonstrated that mood and anxiety disorders frequently co-occur with disordered eating and contribute to greater symptom severity and poorer outcomes [40,41]. Trauma exposure and post-traumatic stress symptoms, in particular, have been identified as important contributors to the complexity and chronicity of disordered eating behaviors [41,42].

Strengths and limitations

This study included a large sample of medical students recruited from fifteen colleges across multiple regions of Yemen and from all academic years, providing broad geographic and academic representation. The use of the EAT-26, a widely validated screening instrument with strong internal consistency in the present sample, strengthens the reliability of the screening assessment.

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the cross-sectional design precludes inference regarding causality or temporal relationships between disordered eating risk and associated factors. Second, a non-probability convenience sampling strategy was used, and participation was voluntary through online distribution channels. Because the exact number of students who received the survey invitation could not be determined, a response rate could not be calculated. This may limit assessment of representativeness and introduces the possibility of selection bias.

All variables were based on self-report, including psychiatric diagnoses, chronic medical conditions, suicide history, and anthropometric measures used to calculate body mass index. Psychiatric conditions were not clinically verified, and self-reported height and weight may be subject to reporting bias. These factors may have led to misclassification or measurement error.

Additionally, the EAT-26 is a screening instrument rather than a diagnostic tool and therefore cannot be used to estimate the prevalence of clinically confirmed eating disorders. Future longitudinal studies are warranted to clarify temporal relationships and better understand the progression and persistence of disordered eating risk among medical students. Consideration could be given to incorporating screening and mental health support strategies within medical training institutions, although further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of such approaches in this context.

Conclusion

This national multicenter cross-sectional study indicates that disordered eating risk is common among medical students in Yemen, with 30.4% screening positive on the EAT-26. Disordered eating risk was associated with several sociodemographic, medical, and psychological factors, including food insecurity, parental perception of being overweight, weight dissatisfaction, type 1 diabetes mellitus, past suicide attempts, and multiple self-reported psychiatric conditions. Risk was observed in both male and female students. Given the cross-sectional design and reliance on self-reported data, causal relationships cannot be established. These findings suggest that consideration may be given to incorporating screening and supportive mental health resources within medical training institutions. Further longitudinal research is needed to clarify temporal relationships and inform preventive strategies.

Supporting information

S1 File. STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies.

Checklist of items that should be included in reports of cross-sectional studies.

(PDF)

pone.0345771.s001.pdf (173.9KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our deepest gratitude to the Yemeni medical student community for their invaluable support and active participation in this research. Their collaboration, commitment, and enthusiasm toward advancing medical knowledge were fundamental to the success of this study. Our heartfelt thanks go to Professor Mohammed Abdullah Al-Eryani for his generous support and steadfast encouragement throughout all stages of this research. His continuous guidance and belief in the potential of this work played a vital role in its completion and quality.

We also extend our sincere appreciation to Professor Mohammed Alshehri for his exceptional mentorship. His insightful feedback and thoughtful direction significantly enhanced the academic rigor and impact of this study. Special thanks are due to Saif Alaribi and Yusra Rashed Al-Subaihi, whose assistance during the data collection phase, though limited in scope, meaningfully contributed to the progress of this project. We are also grateful to the following individuals for their dedicated efforts in data collection:

Mohammed R. Arrabyee, Ziad Mohammed AL-Othrubi, Amjed Al-Jahmi, Hajar Aqabi, Akram Al-Wadei, Fatima Odhah, Khulood Al-Khateeb, Fatima Al-Mutawakel, Ahmed Ahmed, Yousef Al-Qadimi, and Akram Al-Wadei.

Their valuable contributions were instrumental in ensuring the thoroughness and success of the study.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during this study are publicly available in the Figshare repository at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30987517.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Tavolacci MP, Grigioni S, Richard L, Meyrignac G, Déchelotte P, Ladner J. Eating disorders and associated health risks among university students. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2015;47(5):412-20.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2015.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Phillips L, Kemppainen JK, Mechling BM, MacKain S, Kim-Godwin Y, Leopard L. Eating disorders and spirituality in college students. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2015;53(1):30–7. doi: 10.3928/02793695-20141201-01 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Call C, Walsh BT, Attia E. From DSM-IV to DSM-5: changes to eating disorder diagnoses. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2013;26(6):532–6. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e328365a321 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ghazzawi HA, Nimer LS, Sweidan DH, Alhaj OA, Abulawi D, Amawi AT, et al. The global prevalence of screen-based disordered eating and associated risk factors among high school students: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. J Eat Disord. 2023;11(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s40337-023-00849-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Solmi M, Monaco F, Højlund M, Monteleone AM, Trott M, Firth J, et al. Outcomes in people with eating disorders: a transdiagnostic and disorder-specific systematic review, meta-analysis and multivariable meta-regression analysis. World Psychiatry. 2024;23(1):124–38. doi: 10.1002/wps.21182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Galmiche M, Déchelotte P, Lambert G, Tavolacci MP. Prevalence of eating disorders over the 2000-2018 period: a systematic literature review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019;109(5):1402–13. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jahrami H, Saif Z, Trabelsi K, Ghazzawi H, Pandi-Perumal SR, Seeman MV. An umbrella review and a meta-analysis of meta-analyses of disordered eating among medical students. Alpha Psychiatry. 2024;25(2):165–74. doi: 10.5152/alphapsychiatry.2024.241515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zeng W, Chen R, Wang X, Zhang Q, Deng W. Prevalence of mental health problems among medical students in China: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(18):e15337. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015337 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dodin Y, Obeidat N, Dodein R, Seetan K, Alajjawe S, Awwad M, et al. Mental health and lifestyle-related behaviors in medical students in a Jordanian University, and variations by clerkship status. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):1283. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06273-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Adhikari A, Dutta A, Sapkota S, Chapagain A, Aryal A, Pradhan A. Prevalence of poor mental health among medical students in Nepal: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):232. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-1083-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hammad NM, Sonneville KR, Shanab BM, Khosla P, Austin SB, Leung CW. Weight bias internalization, weight controllability beliefs, and probable eating disorder associations among medical students at a private university in the US. Eat Behav. 2025;58:102010. doi: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2025.102010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Puthran R, Zhang MWB, Tam WW, Ho RC. Prevalence of depression amongst medical students: a meta-analysis. Med Educ. 2016;50(4):456–68. doi: 10.1111/medu.12962 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Abdulla ZARA, Almahmood HO, Alghasra RR, Alherz ZAS, Alsharifa HAG, Qamber SJ, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of binge eating disorder among Bahraini youth and young adults: a cross-sectional study in a self-selected convenience sample. J Eat Disord. 2023;11(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s40337-022-00726-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Elsherif ES, Al-Rakhawy MY, Fathy H, Adel A, Khalaf OO. Disordered eating behaviors among a sample of final-year medical students at Cairo University and its relationship with alexithymia and social cognition. Middle East Curr Psychiatry. 2025;32(1). doi: 10.1186/s43045-025-00498-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ali EAA, Shehata WM. Eating disorder risk among medical students at Tanta University, Egypt. Egypt J Community Med. 2020;38(4):17. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ogundele MO. Behavioural and emotional disorders in childhood: a brief overview for paediatricians. World J Clin Pediatr. 2018;7(1):9–26. doi: 10.5409/wjcp.v7.i1.9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Golden NH. Eating disorders in adolescence and their sequelae. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;17(1):57–73. doi: 10.1053/ybeog.2003.0344 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Alhaj OA, Fekih-Romdhane F, Sweidan DH, Saif Z, Khudhair MF, Ghazzawi H, et al. The prevalence and risk factors of screen-based disordered eating among university students: a global systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Eat Weight Disord. 2022;27(8):3215–43. doi: 10.1007/s40519-022-01452-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Belhaj Salem S, Idrissi FEE, Fikry Mohamed A, Khrais H, Jad RE, Haq UU, et al. Screening of the risk of eating disorders among medical students in the MENA region and its associated factors: a multinational cross-sectional study. Brain Behav. 2025;15(3):e70417. doi: 10.1002/brb3.70417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ: Br Med J. 2007;335(7624):806. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kang H. Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2021;18:17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Belhaj Salem S, Idrissi FE, Fikry Mohamed A, Khrais H, Jad RE, Haq UU, et al. Screening of the risk of eating disorders among medical students in the MENA region and its associated factors: a multinational cross-sectional study. Brain Behav. 2025;15(3):e70417. doi: 10.1002/brb3.70417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Garner DM, Bohr Y, Garfinkel PE. The eating attitudes test: psychometric features and clinical correlates. Psychol Med. 1982;12(4):871–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Janahi S, Alkhater N, Bucheer A, Hashem Y, Alothman KK, Alsada A, et al. A reliability generalization meta-analysis of the eating attitudes test 26 (EAT-26) Scale. Cureus. 2024;16(11):e73647. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jahrami H, Saif Z, Trabelsi K, Ghazzawi H, Pandi-Perumal SR, Seeman MV. An umbrella review and a meta-analysis of meta-analyses of disordered eating among medical students. Alpha Psychiatry. 2024;25(2):165–74. doi: 10.5152/alphapsychiatry.2024.241515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fekih-Romdhane F, Daher-Nashif S, Alhuwailah AH, Al Gahtani HMS, Hubail SA, Shuwiekh HAM, et al. The prevalence of feeding and eating disorders symptomology in medical students: an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Eat Weight Disord. 2022;27(6):1991–2010. doi: 10.1007/s40519-021-01351-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gorrell S, Murray SB. Eating disorders in males. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2019;28(4):641–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Almahmeed MB, Almutawa MA, Naguib YM. The prevalence of and the effect of global stressors on eating disorders among medical students. Front Psychol. 2025;16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mallaram GK, Sharma P, Kattula D, Singh S, Pavuluru P. Body image perception, eating disorder behavior, self-esteem and quality of life: a cross-sectional study among female medical students. J Eat Disord. 2023;11(1):225. doi: 10.1186/s40337-023-00945-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Motorga R, Ionescu M, Nechita F, Micu D, Băluțoiu I, Dinu MM, et al. Eating disorders in medical students: prevalence, risk factors, comparison with the general population. Front Psychol. 2025;15:1515084. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1515084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Al-Maghaireh D, Shawish NS, Alsaqer K, Kawafha M, Sheyab HS, Al Mushasha RA, et al. Acute stress disorders among jordanian adolescents after watching Gaza news footage on social media. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2024;:2521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Atriham AR, Kleszczyński J, Sierakowska A, Springer J. Diabulimia – a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge in the emergency department. Eur J Transl Clin Med. 2024;7(1):57–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Coleman SE, Caswell N. Diabetes and eating disorders: an exploration of “Diabulimia”. BMC Psychol. 2020;8(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s40359-020-00468-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Dziewa M, Bańka B, Herbet M, Piątkowska-Chmiel I. Eating disorders and diabetes: facing the dual challenge. Nutrients. 2023;15(18):3955. doi: 10.3390/nu15183955 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Brosig L, Düplois D, Hiemisch A, Kiess W, Hilbert A, Schlensog-Schuster F. Birth-related, medical, and diagnostic characteristics in younger versus older children with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID). J Eat Disord. 2023;11(1):190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Che Y, Li S, Hu X, Hu H, Zhang C, He C. Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder in adult patients with gastrointestinal diseases: a concept analysis using evolutionary approach. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2025;18:2063–80. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S520802 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lin JA, Woods ER, Bern EM. Common and emergent oral and gastrointestinal manifestations of eating disorders. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2021;17(4):157–67. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Franko DL, Keel PK. Suicidality in eating disorders: occurrence, correlates, and clinical implications. Clin Psychol Rev. 2006;26(6):769–82. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2006.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Pisetsky EM, Thornton LM, Lichtenstein P, Pedersen NL, Bulik CM. Suicide attempts in women with eating disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013;122(4):1042–56. doi: 10.1037/a0034902 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Garcia SC, Mikhail ME, Keel PK, Burt SA, Neale MC, Boker S, et al. Increased rates of eating disorders and their symptoms in women with major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(11):1844–54. doi: 10.1002/eat.23366 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Brewerton TD. The integrated treatment of eating disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychiatric comorbidity: a commentary on the evolution of principles and guidelines. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14:1149433. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1149433 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Vanzhula IA, Calebs B, Fewell L, Levinson CA. Illness pathways between eating disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms: understanding comorbidity with network analysis. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2019;27(2):147–60. doi: 10.1002/erv.2634 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mohammed Zawiah

27 Dec 2025

Dear Dr. sharyan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 10 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohammed Zawiah

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information .

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear reviwers thank you for your effort in conducting this study, it's interesting, here are some minor comments

- Did you conduct a pilot study?

- what are the practical implication of your study

- Language and gramatical revision are needed

Reviewer #2: I recommend the manuscript be revised to address these fundamental issues regarding conceptual clarity, methodological transparency, and internal consistency. The study has valuable data, and these revisions will ensure its message is communicated with precision and rigor

Title

• The title requires revision for scientific precision. The term (Uncovering) is stylistic rather than scientific and implies discovery or novelty, which is not necessary here. Replacing it would improve neutrality and clarity.

• More importantly, the title refers to (Eating Disorders), which may imply clinically diagnosed conditions. However, the study assesses risk of disordered eating using the EAT-26, not diagnosed eating disorders.

• Please standardize terminology based on your outcome (EAT-26 ≥20) from the introduction through the conclusion. I recommend using "disordered eating risk" or "risk of disordered eating behaviors" consistently.

Abstract

• The Results section does not clearly report sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health-related characteristics, although these are mentioned.

• Protective factors are reported in the Results but are not reflected in the title or study objective; this inconsistency should be addressed.

• The Conclusion uses the terms “disordered eating behaviors” and “at risk based on EAT-26,” which aligns with the methods but conflicts with the title’s reference to “eating disorders.” Terminology should be consistent throughout.

• Please revise some sentences for clarity and professional flow.

Introduction

• The objective is generally reflected in the title through terms such as “burden” and “risk factors.” However, for accuracy, the title should explicitly indicate risk of disordered eating rather than diagnosed eating disorders.

Methods

Terminology

• The manuscript uses multiple terms interchangeably (eating disorders, disordered eating, disordered eating behaviors), despite using the EAT-26, which measures risk of disordered eating. Please standardize terminology throughout according to the measurement tool.

Study Setting and Participants

• Please clarify:

o The method used to select institutions and participants.

o The names of universities and cities included to support claims of broad geographical representation.

o Whether all institutions were located in Sana’a or across different regions in Yemen.

• There is inconsistency between “universities in Yemen” (Abstract) and “institutions” (Methods). Please unify terminology.

Sample Size

• The use of G*Power for sample size calculation should be supported by:

o Justification for selecting this method.

o Relevant parameters and references.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

• There is repetition in the presentation of inclusion criteria; please streamline.

• Exclusion criteria are not reported and should be clearly stated.

• The criterion “age ≥18 years” adds limited value, as undergraduate medical students are typically adults; please justify its inclusion.

• Clarify how voluntary participation and electronic informed consent were obtained and documented.

Instruments

o Before detailing sections, introduce the overall questionnaire used in the study. State clearly of this subsection that a structured, self-administered online questionnaire was used?

• Regarding the EAT-26:

o Specify whether a free or licensed version was used and whether formal permission was obtained.

o Please attach the questionnaire and EAT-26 tool you have used.

o Provide details on validation, including reliability, internal consistency, and any face or content validation performed.

o Clarify whether the Arabic and/or English versions were used.

o The phrase (previously validated versions) requires clarification and supporting references.

o Please discuss whether these validated versions are appropriate for Yemeni medical students.

Study Design

• Specify whether the study was conducted electronically, face-to-face, or both.

• Clarify whether the questionnaire was self-administered.

Statistical Analysis

• The overall statistical plan is appropriate; however, additional details are required to confirm rigor:

• Report the number of participants with EAT-26 ≥20 and whether the events-per-variable criterion was satisfied for logistic regression.

• Indicate whether multicollinearity and model fit diagnostics were assessed.

• Clarify whether continuous predictors were modeled as continuous or categorical, and whether linearity was assessed.

• The use of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test should be clarified. Since normality is not an assumption of logistic regression, please explain that it was used to guide data presentation (mean ± SD vs. median [IQR]).

• Specify the variable selection method used in the final regression model (e.g., enter, stepwise).

• Please justify the use of p < 0.20 for variable selection in the multivariable logistic regression and provide the corresponding bivariate analysis results, as they are not included in the manuscript.

Results

• The Results section should begin with a brief descriptive summary of participant demographics.

• The prevalence of disordered eating is not clearly explained. Although referenced in Table 1, it does not appear to be calculated there—please clarify.

• Results consistently describe “risk of disordered eating”, not eating disorders, which conflicts with the title.

• Some variables in Table 1 (e.g., academic year, marital status) appear inconsistently interpreted; please recheck and align text with tables.

• Table 3: The title and text should be consistent (behavioral attitudes vs. disordered eating behaviors). Percentages should be carefully reviewed.

• Please check and correct the percentage totals in your tables, as some appear to sum to 100.1% or 99.9%.

• Table 4:

o Ensure consistency between the table title and the text description.

o Clarify the rationale for reporting two p-value thresholds (p <0.05; *p <0.001).

o In the Methods, you state that students were classified into two groups based on EAT-26, but this classification is not clearly presented in the tables.

o Add abbreviations and footnotes for clarity.

o Explain why certain significant sociodemographic predictors were not included in the final model.

Discussion

• There is an inconsistency regarding marital status: it is reported as non-significant in the Discussion, yet Table 1 shows a significant association (p <0.001).

• The statement (Our study reinforces that medical trainees consistently exhibit higher disordered eating prevalence than the general population (10.4% vs. 5.7%) in females, particularly within non-Western cultures (28,31), is not clearly supported by the study’s own data; please clarify or remove.

• The statement (Our finding that 30.4% of medical trainees screened positive for disordered eating exceeds the global pooled prevalence estimates..), please specify whether the Prevalence calculation and screening tools used in these global studies are comparable to those used in the present study?

Conclusion

• The Conclusion should focus strictly on key findings. Limitations and strengths are better placed in a dedicated section or at the end of the Discussion.

• No need to mention and repeat the percentage in the conclusion.

Acknowledgments

• The Acknowledgments section is overly long and should be shortened.

References

• Some references require updating (e.g., references 21 and 25).

Based on the detailed comments in the provided PDF, please revise the manuscript to address all remaining issues identified therein.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments_Final.docx

pone.0345771.s002.docx (20.3KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-61542-Final_reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 25;21(3):e0345771. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345771.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 Jan 2026

Response to reviewers

We sincerely thank the Editor and the Reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and for their constructive and insightful comments. We have revised the manuscript thoroughly to address all concerns raised. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response. All changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.

----------------------------

Reviewer 1

Comment 1: Did you conduct a pilot study?

Response: Yes, a pilot study was conducted prior to the main data collection. We have now explicitly reported this in the Methods section. The questionnaire was pilot tested among 40 medical students who were not included in the final analysis to assess clarity, cultural appropriateness, and technical functionality of the online survey. Minor linguistic and formatting modifications were made based on participant feedback. We also reported the internal consistency of the EAT-26 in the pilot sample using Cronbach alpha.

Comment 2: What are the practical implication of your study

Response: Thank you for this important suggestion. We have expanded the Discussion section to clearly outline the practical implications of our findings. Specifically, we now emphasize the need for routine screening for disordered eating risk within medical schools, integration of mental health and nutritional support services, and targeted interventions for students with identified psychological and social risk factors. These implications are discussed in the revised Discussion and Conclusion sections.

Comment 3: Language and gramaticalr revision are needed

Response: We appreciate this comment. The manuscript has undergone comprehensive language and grammatical revision. Sentence structure, clarity, academic tone, and terminology consistency were carefully improved throughout the manuscript. Redundant phrasing was removed, and terminology was standardized to reflect screening for disordered eating risk rather than diagnosed eating disorders.

----------------------------

Reviewer 2

We thank Reviewer 2 for their detailed and constructive feedback, which greatly improved the clarity, rigor, and scientific precision of the manuscript.

Title

Comment 1: The title requires revision for scientific precision. The term (Uncovering) is stylistic rather than scientific and implies discovery or novelty, which is not necessary here.

Response: We agree with this comment and have revised the title to adopt a more neutral and scientific tone. The revised title removes stylistic language and accurately reflects the study design and outcomes.

Comment 2: The title refers to (Eating Disorders), which may imply clinically diagnosed conditions. However, the study assesses risk of disordered eating using the EAT-26.

Response: This is an important point. The title has been revised to replace “Eating Disorders” with “Disordered Eating Risk,” ensuring consistency with the screening nature of the EAT-26 and avoiding any implication of clinical diagnosis.

Abstract

Comment 3: The Results section does not clearly report sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health-related characteristics.

Response: The Abstract has been revised to clearly summarize key sociodemographic, medical, psychological, and social correlates of disordered eating risk identified in the study.

Comment 4: Protective factors are reported in the Results but are not reflected in the title or study objective.

Response: We clarified the study objective to include both risk and protective factors. Protective factors are now consistently reported and interpreted in the Abstract, Results, and Discussion sections.

Comment 5: Terminology is inconsistent between the title and conclusion.

Response: Terminology has been standardized throughout the manuscript. The terms “disordered eating risk” and “screening positive on the EAT-26” are now used consistently from the Abstract through the Conclusion.

Methods

Comment 6: The manuscript uses multiple terms interchangeably despite using a screening tool.

Response: We fully agree. All terminology has been standardized to reflect screening outcomes. References to “eating disorders” are now limited to background context, while study findings consistently refer to “disordered eating risk” or “disordered eating behaviors.”

Comment 7: Clarify the method used to select institutions and participants and provide geographic details.

Response: We have clarified the selection of participating medical colleges, including the number of institutions, their geographic distribution across multiple Yemeni governorates, and the recruitment approach. Terminology has been unified to “medical colleges” throughout the manuscript.

Comment 8: Sample size calculation using GPower requires justification.*

Response: We have expanded the Sample Size Calculation subsection to justify the use of G*Power software, explain parameter selection, and cite its widespread use in epidemiological and regression-based studies.

Comment 9: Inclusion and exclusion criteria are repetitive, and exclusion criteria are missing.

Response: This section was streamlined. Exclusion criteria were clearly added, repetition was removed, and the rationale for inclusion criteria was clarified. The process of voluntary participation and electronic informed consent was also explicitly described.

Comment 10: Clarify questionnaire structure, validation, language versions, and permission for EAT-26 use.

Response: The Methods section was revised to introduce the questionnaire clearly under a “Study Tools” subsection. We specified that the EAT-26 is a freely available screening tool, described the Arabic and English validated versions used, reported internal consistency using Cronbach alpha, and attached the questionnaire as supplementary material.

Comment 11: Statistical analysis requires additional details regarding regression assumptions and variable selection.

Response: We expanded the Statistical Analysis section to include the number of outcome events, justification for p < 0.20 variable selection, assessment of multicollinearity, model fit testing, and clarification of how variables were entered into the regression model.

Results

Comment 12: The Results section should begin with a descriptive summary.

Response: The Results section was restructured to begin with a concise description of participant characteristics and prevalence of disordered eating risk before presenting associations.

Comment 13: Tables are overloaded, inconsistent, and unclear.

Response: Table 1 was split into two separate tables to improve clarity. All tables were revised to ensure consistent terminology, correct percentage calculations, clear denominators, and alignment with the text. Tables were renumbered accordingly.

Discussion

Comment 14: There are inconsistencies regarding marital status and prevalence comparisons.

Response: We clarified that marital status was significant only in bivariate analysis and did not remain significant in multivariable regression. Prevalence comparisons were revised to explicitly acknowledge differences in study design and screening tools, and unsupported statements were removed or softened.

Conclusion

Comment 15: The Conclusion should focus on key findings, with limitations addressed elsewhere.

Response: The Conclusion was rewritten to focus strictly on the main findings and implications. Limitations were moved to a dedicated subsection within the Discussion, as recommended.

References

Comment 16: Some references require updating.

Response: All references were reviewed and updated where necessary to ensure accuracy and currency.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Point to point response.pdf

pone.0345771.s005.pdf (159.5KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 1

Mohammed Zawiah

22 Feb 2026

Dear Dr. sharyan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

The manuscript addresses an important topic and has a valuable national multicenter scope; however, several issues require clarification to improve rigor, consistency, and alignment of conclusions with the cross-sectional design. Furthermore, please address the comments highlighted below from Reviewer 2.

Abstract:

Please address internal consistency and reporting clarity. The proportion reporting a prior eating disorder diagnosis (31.6%) appears unusually high and exceeds the EAT-26 positive screening proportion (30.4%); clarify how “prior diagnosis” was defined/ascertained (self-report vs. verified) and ensure it is plausible and interpretable.

Methods:

The recruitment is described as “official student communication platforms,” but there is no clear sampling method (probability vs convenience), no denominator (how many students were invited/eligible across the 15 colleges), and no response rate. This is critical for a national multicenter online survey and should be added.

Selecting variables by bivariate p < 0.20 can be acceptable, but please justify and consider including a priori confounders regardless of p-value.

“descriptive cross-sectional study with an analytical component” is redundant; you can simply state “national multicenter cross-sectional study.”

You mention Arabic/English EAT-26 versions are validated, but please cite the specific validation studies used and clarify whether you used official translations.

Height/weight are “self-reported”. Please acknowledge potential measurement bias and specify whether BMI was calculated and how missing/implausible values were handled.

Results:

The prevalence of “previous eating disorder diagnosis” (31.6%) appears unusually high and exceeds the EAT-26 positive screening prevalence (30.4%); please clarify how prior diagnosis was defined/ascertained (self-report vs verified) and ensure consistency. There is also an apparent denominator/label mismatch where n=1,117 is used both for “prior diagnosis” and later for “disordered eating symptoms,” suggesting a reporting error.

You report multiple diagnoses (PTSD, OCD, bipolar, schizophrenia, etc.) as “self-reported.” In Results, these are treated as clinical diagnoses, but if they are self-reported, interpretation changes substantially. Also, the prevalence of some diagnoses in a student sample may be questioned. Please state explicitly whether psychiatric conditions were self-reported diagnoses vs screened using validated instruments, and consider presenting them as “self-reported history of…” to avoid implying clinical confirmation.

You list behaviors like vomiting/laxatives/diet pills with high prevalence in the full sample. That’s important epidemiologically, but ensure it is framed descriptively and not as normalized; also ensure the denominator (lifetime vs recent) is clear. Please specify the time frame for each behavior (lifetime vs past 28 days/3 months), and ensure wording is clinically neutral and precise.

Conclusion

The conclusion is overly long and expansive and reads partly like a second Results/Discussion section. Please condense it to the key prevalence finding and a brief summary of the main associated domains, and avoid overstatement (e.g., replace “demonstrates”/“complex interplay” with more cautious wording consistent with a cross-sectional screening study). In addition, temper the implementation recommendations (screening/support services) so they are framed as considerations rather than implied effects, and ensure the novelty claim (“first national evidence”) is clearly justified by the literature review.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 08 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohammed Zawiah

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Reviewer Comments:

Results-Table 1:

• The statement about sixth-year students is incorrect. First-year students are the clear high-risk group (23.2% vs. 14.7%). Please Revise.

• Improve reporting: please Replace "higher proportions were observed" with explicit comparisons (e.g., "16.4% vs. 5.1%").

• Highlight key findings: Emphasize the strongest associations (suicide attempts, autism, diabetes) showing >3x higher prevalence.

• It's better to add (* or Bold) to indicate the significance.

Results-Figure 1:

• The text incorrectly uses the statistical term "no significant weight."

Figure 1 is descriptive and shows no p-values. Correct to descriptive language like "no weight change" or "stable weight," matching the figure's legend.

Results – Table 2:

• The Results should include comparative percentages to show magnitude (e.g., PTSD 8.3% vs. 3.0%).

• Phrases like “exhibited higher proportions” should be replaced with precise wording reflecting screening positive for disordered eating risk.

• Highlight strong associations, such as bipolar disorder (3.6% vs. 0.6%) and schizophrenia (3.0% vs. 0.4%), which are 6–7 times higher in the risk group.

• “All assessed psychiatric conditions, with the exception of obsessive traits, were significantly associated…”

borderline personality disorder was NOT significant, so this sentence is inaccurate.

• Add abbreviation on table footnote: e.g. PTSD, OCD,…

Results- Table 4:

• The total for "Eating binges" (n=3707) exceeds the sample size (N=3540), causing an impossible percentage (104.9%).

• Recalculate all frequencies so that Yes + No = 3540 (100%) for each behavior.

Discussion:

• A contradiction exists regarding marital status: The Discussion states: "variables such as marital status ... were not independently associated with disordered eating risk."

However, Table 1 shows marital status was significantly associated in bivariate analysis (p<0.001).

• Please correct the Discussion to accurately reflect that while marital status showed a significant bivariate association, it was not retained as an independent predictor in the final multivariate model. The current wording is misleading.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Mohammed M. Battah, PhD, Clinical Pharmacy, University of Science and Technology, Sana'a, Yemen

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 25;21(3):e0345771. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345771.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


2 Mar 2026

Response to the Academic Editor and Reviewer #2

Dear Dr. Zawiah and Reviewer #2,

We sincerely thank you for your careful review of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We have revised the manuscript thoroughly to address all concerns raised. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response outlining the revisions made.

Response to the Academic Editor

Comment 1:

The manuscript addresses an important topic and has a valuable national multicenter scope; however, several issues require clarification to improve rigor, consistency, and alignment of conclusions with the cross-sectional design.

Response:

We thank the Editor for this thoughtful assessment. We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve methodological transparency, internal consistency, and alignment of interpretation with the cross-sectional design. In particular, we have clarified sampling procedures, self-reported measures, variable selection criteria, and have moderated the tone of the Discussion and Conclusion to avoid causal language.

Abstract

Comment 2:

The proportion reporting a prior eating disorder diagnosis (31.6%) appears unusually high and exceeds the EAT-26 positive screening proportion (30.4%); clarify how “prior diagnosis” was defined/ascertained (self-report vs. verified) and ensure it is plausible and interpretable.

Response:

We appreciate this important observation. We have clarified in both the Methods and Abstract that prior diagnosis was assessed through a single self-reported item asking participants whether they had ever received a diagnosis from a healthcare professional, and that this information was not independently verified.

Additionally, we have added explanatory text in the Discussion to clarify that the discrepancy between lifetime self-reported diagnosis (31.6%) and current screening positivity (30.4%) may reflect symptom remission, differences between lifetime and current status, or potential misclassification inherent to self-report data.

Methods

Comment 3:

The recruitment is described as “official student communication platforms,” but there is no clear sampling method, no denominator, and no response rate.

Response:

We have added a dedicated “Sampling and recruitment” subsection to the Methods. We now clearly state that a non-probability convenience sampling strategy was used and that participation was voluntary via online distribution channels.

We have clarified that, due to distribution across multiple institutional and student-managed platforms, the exact number of students who received the survey invitation could not be determined; therefore, a response rate could not be calculated. We have also acknowledged this as a limitation in the Discussion.

Comment 4:

Selecting variables by bivariate p < 0.20 should be justified and consider including a priori confounders.

Response:

We have revised the Statistical Analysis section to justify the use of p < 0.20 as a preliminary inclusion threshold to avoid excluding potentially important confounders. We also clarified that key sociodemographic variables (e.g., age and gender) were retained in the multivariable model regardless of statistical significance due to theoretical relevance.

Comment 5:

“Descriptive cross-sectional study with an analytical component” is redundant.

Response:

We have revised the wording throughout the manuscript to state simply:

“national multicenter cross-sectional study.”

Comment 6:

Clarify EAT-26 validation and translation.

Response:

We have specified that both Arabic and English versions of the EAT-26 used in this study were previously validated and have now cited the relevant validation studies. We also clarified that official validated translations were used.

Comment 7:

Height/weight are self-reported; acknowledge measurement bias and specify BMI calculation and handling of implausible values.

Response:

We have clarified in the Methods that BMI was calculated using self-reported height and weight (kg/m²). We also added that implausible anthropometric values were screened during data cleaning and excluded based on biologically plausible ranges. This potential measurement bias is now explicitly acknowledged in the Limitations section.

Results

Comment 8:

The prevalence of prior diagnosis appears unusually high and there is a denominator mismatch (n=1,117 used twice).

Response:

We have carefully reviewed and corrected the reporting to eliminate any denominator inconsistencies. The figures for prior diagnosis and symptom reporting are now clearly distinguished and internally consistent. We have also clarified that prior diagnosis was self-reported and not verified.

Comment 9:

Psychiatric diagnoses are self-reported but treated as clinical diagnoses.

Response:

We have revised the Methods, Results, and Discussion to consistently refer to these variables as “self-reported history of…” psychiatric conditions. We explicitly state that these were not clinically verified and were not assessed using diagnostic instruments.

Comment 10:

Behaviors such as vomiting and laxative use must be framed descriptively, with clear time frames.

Response:

We have revised Table 4 and its accompanying text to ensure accurate totals and percentages (correcting a summation error). We now describe these behaviors in neutral, descriptive language and clearly indicate that frequencies refer to reported behavioral occurrence categories within the survey time frame. All percentages now sum correctly to the total sample (N = 3,540).

Conclusion

Comment 11:

The conclusion is overly long and expansive; avoid overstatement and temper implementation recommendations.

Response:

We have substantially shortened and revised the Conclusion. We removed causal phrasing (e.g., “demonstrates,” “complex interplay”), softened recommendations (e.g., “consideration may be given to”), and aligned interpretation with the cross-sectional design. The novelty claim has been removed to avoid overstatement.

----------------------------------------------

Response to Reviewer #2

We sincerely thank Reviewer #2 for the careful and constructive comments.

Results – Table 1

Comment 1:

The statement about sixth-year students is incorrect.

Response:

Thank you for identifying this. We have corrected the Results text to accurately state that first-year students had the highest proportion of disordered eating risk (23.2% vs. 14.7%). The incorrect reference to sixth-year students has been removed.

Comment 2:

Replace vague wording with explicit comparisons.

Response:

We have revised the Results section to include precise percentage comparisons throughout (e.g., “16.4% vs. 5.1%”), rather than general phrases such as “higher proportions were observed.”

Comment 3:

Highlight strongest associations (>3x higher prevalence).

Response:

We have revised the Results text to explicitly emphasize strong differences for suicide attempts, autism spectrum disorder, and type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Comment 4:

Indicate statistical significance in tables.

Response:

We have revised table formatting to clearly indicate statistically significant findings.

Results – Figure 1

Comment 5:

Replace “no significant weight” with descriptive wording.

Response:

We have corrected this to “no weight change” to avoid inappropriate statistical terminology in a descriptive figure.

Results – Table 2

Comment 6:

Include comparative percentages and correct inaccurate statement regarding borderline personality disorder.

Response:

We have revised the Results text to include explicit comparative percentages (e.g., PTSD 8.3% vs. 3.0%). We corrected the statement to reflect that borderline personality disorder was not statistically significant. Table footnotes now include abbreviations (e.g., PTSD, OCD).

Results – Table 4

Comment 7:

Total exceeded sample size.

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for identifying this error. We have recalculated all frequencies to ensure each row sums exactly to N = 3,540 (100%). The table and corresponding text have been corrected accordingly.

Discussion

Comment 8:

Clarify marital status contradiction.

Response:

We have revised the Discussion to clarify that marital status was significant in bivariate analysis but was not retained as an independent predictor in the adjusted multivariable model.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Point to point response.docx

pone.0345771.s006.docx (18.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Mohammed Zawiah

10 Mar 2026

Prevalence and risk factors of disordered eating risk among Yemeni medical students: a national multicenter cross-sectional study

PONE-D-25-61542R2

Dear Dr. sharyan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohammed Zawiah

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Mohammed Zawiah

PONE-D-25-61542R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. sharyan,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mohammed Zawiah

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies.

    Checklist of items that should be included in reports of cross-sectional studies.

    (PDF)

    pone.0345771.s001.pdf (173.9KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments_Final.docx

    pone.0345771.s002.docx (20.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-61542-Final_reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Point to point response.pdf

    pone.0345771.s005.pdf (159.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Point to point response.docx

    pone.0345771.s006.docx (18.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The datasets generated and analyzed during this study are publicly available in the Figshare repository at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30987517.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES